Skin Conditions in Community-Living Older Adults
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: There are considerable gaps in the knowledge of the global epidemiology of skin conditions in the geriatric population. OBJECTIVE: This study attempted to (1) determine the frequency of skin conditions, (2) evaluate the agreement between two different data sources of information (self-report versus administrative), and (3) document medical care service use for skin conditions in a representative sample of community-dwelling older adults. METHODS: A secondary analysis using data from a longitudinal population-based health survey conducted in Quebec (2005-2008) within a sample of 2,811 community-dwelling older adults. RESULTS: Our results highlighted a high prevalence rate of self-reported (13%) and diagnosed skin conditions (21%). Agreement between data sources was low (kappa < 0.20). Most dermatologic-related medical visits were made to dermatologists (almost 60%). CONCLUSION: The epidemiology of skin conditions in the geriatric population is an under researched field, despite its important prevalence and relevance as a source of information for assessing the health care needs of older adults.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".